Did Hubble can it wrong?

[little_monkey]

Read it again: The redshift is not defined for photons emitted inside the Schwarzschild radius, later on in the same paragraph, "When the photon is emitted at a distance equal to the Schwarzschild radius, the redshift will be infinitely large. When the photon is emitted at an infinitely large distance, there is no redshift." The author is specifically talking about a black hole.

How can you miss "Therefore this formula only applies when R^* is at least as large as r_s." I bolded for you. You also missed the "not defined" part in your bolded region. How can the equation give a value of the redshift if it is not defined for R^* < r_s? Reading comprehension FAIL.

And what do you think the "s" stands for in "r_s"? It stands for the Schwarzchild radius. And what is that? Google it, you are embarrassing yourself.

The author makes it clear: if the light emanates when R > "r_s", the Scwarzschild radius, meaning OUTSIDE the black hole, it will go to infinity. If R is equal to "r_s" or smaller than "r_s", meaning the light emantes from INSIDE the black hole, it won't escape.


AND THIS HAS SWEETFUCK ALL WITH MY CLAIM, FUCKiNG MORON.

Also, you are forgetting the most fundamental rule of scientific proofs, your model predictions have to match the observations.

My derivation predicts Hubble equation which is an OBSERVATION.

Can you get it , FUCKING MORON.

In equation 5, you did binomial expansion that works only if d1/R is much less than one. Later, your trying to apply your solution to cases where d1/R will no longer be much less than one. It will be much greater than one. Your binomial approximation is longer justified.

Which part of "Rsource is infinite" don't you get? If the universe is infinite then 1/Rsource is zero. As I said before and will repeat, the only argument against my calculation is if the universe is finite.

AND YOU SAY YOU KNOW MATH. WHAT A FUCKING LAUGH.

Observations are not unfounded opinions. Hard equations are not proofs. Your doing too much theory not enough experiment.

Your statement was not backup by any proof. I'm giving you proof of my claim, yet you reject with no valid reasons so far but you expect me to accept your statement which was given without proof. That's pure hypocrisy on your part.

I haven't forgotten. The equations shows that it depends only on the mass of the source, which is

10) d = H Δv,

where H = (cR2source)/ (GMsource)

I'm sure the masses galaxies that were determined via virial theorem and confirmed via graviational lensing agree with your Msource. Oh wait, they don't.

Virial theorem involves objects which are in orbit. There is none of that part in the situation I have presented, when are you going to get on page with what I have presented. What are you a 10-year old? Instead of trying to learn your mistake, you keep repeating them. YOU ARE A TOTAL WASTE.